"THEY AREN'T TERRORISTS" THEY ARE FREEDOM FIGHTERS (OR WHATEVER)....

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

The U.S needed a reason to stay in Afghanistan so they had to conjure up some bullshit and a fool like you took the bait.

Perhaps the factual allegations in the 1998 Indictment of OBL will give you a start .... https://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

BTW: Since you're all choked on Bush ... he was Governor in 1998.

CNN (Not "Faux" BTW): 1998: http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/

Bill Clinton:
""Let our actions today send this message loud and clear -- there are no expendable American targets," U.S. President Clinton said in a televised address to the American people Thursday evening. "There will be no sanctuary for terrorists. We will defend our people, our interests and our values."

U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of millionaire Osama bin Laden."

Then back up a little further to Operation Cyclone in Carter's anemic-misguided administration....with the follow up of Reagan.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...ghanistan.html

"Al-Qa’ida & the Taliban
"In 1996, Usama bin Ladin and other senior leaders of al-Qa’ida moved from Sudan to Afghanistan and began strengthening ties to the Taliban—the brutal government that gave them safe haven. By then, the CIA was tracking al-Qa’ida as a growing threat to US security. After al-Qa’ida bombed the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998, CIA intensified its operations against the terrorist group, in part by reconnecting with Afghan allies from the war against the Soviets. Now known as the Northern Alliance, these Afghans were resisting Taliban rule.

"In late 2000, US policymakers asked CIA what additional resources and authorities it would need to pursue al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan. The Agency recommended stronger support for the Northern Alliance and others opposed to the Taliban governance, as well as assistance to those who might capture al-Qa’ida leaders.

"This planning laid the groundwork for CIA’s aggressive response to the attacks of September 11th. Its experience with rebel commanders and established relationship with the Northern Alliance proved vital to the Agency’s post-9/11 operations. On September 12th, CIA briefed the President on a plan to overthrow the Taliban, including a pledge that Agency officers could be posted with Northern Alliance commanders within two weeks."

FYI: Ho Chi Minh was also an "ally" of the U.S. against the Japanese in WWII.

What did you call it: "some bullshit".... ?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

Well, at least you got it correct in that the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan...as for the rest of your post...it's full of conjecture, opinion, and is mostly completely inaccurate. Please don't post about that particular topic again until you have been through the required history courses in a pre-deployment work up, or until you at least read a factual history of the country you're discussing...

It's hard for others to take your side on other matters when you post fabrications of this magnitude...they tend to undermine your "credibility", and detract from your other cogent discussions...

Thank you.

Wakeup - you are more polite than I am regarding Limpdick's historical illiteracy. If he gets any "pre-deployment work up" it will be from the taliban.

.

[nevergaveitathought]

were the german industrialists helping the nazis in WWII deserving of any guilt?

the makers of zyclon b at all culpable?

was albert speer guilty?

the supporters of criminals are accessories

driving a getaway car for a robbery where someone is shot and killed gets you a murder rap even though all you did was sit in a car

the Taliban, supporting al qaeda , supporting bin laden, they were given a chance, before any invasion, before anyone was in their country, they chose

and now they, themselves, still engage in indiscriminant acts of terror.

even someone as pitiful as diane feinstein admits they are terrorists

[IIFFOFRDB]

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Before you post-do research- you do realize that those are the Pakistan Taliban- who are different from the Afghan Taliban.

oh since we are talking about killing innocents- by all means the U.S must be terrorist: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-afg...-2012-un-says/

Do you know how many innocent civilians were killed by U.S drones?? Oh, it's collateral damage so it doesn't count right?


Oh, I am not going to stop there- I guess the U.S army has terrorist soldiers- do you think I forgot about the U.S soldier who killed afgahn 16 civilians- which included children and women in an afghan village : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-17330205

Oh, he was having psychological issues- so that doesn't count either right?


Again- I ask any of you to give me an honest answer- before the U.S invaded Afghanistan- the Taliban was in power- the U.S would be the intruders/occupiers- with that said does the Taliban have the right to defend their land by any means necessary? Why was it ok for the Taliban to fight back against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan(for political reasons), but it's so wrong for the Taliban to fight back against the U.S when they invaded(for political reasons) their land? Are the former Taliban rulers just suppose to say hey U.S do whateer you want- take over our land and we will be submissive to you. Do you know any country that had a govt that was overtaken by a foreign power and didn't fight back?

No one called the Taliban terrorist back when they were carrying out attacks against the pro-soviet govt- in our history books they were heroes aka freedom fighters.
I am waiting for someone to produce evidence that the Taliban plotted attacks against the U.S pre- 9-11. All those fuckers want is their land and riddance of foreign troops which I can't fault them- if the Taliban want to battle it out with the Northern Alliance that's their business- but the Taliban has NEVER been a terrorist threat to the U.S until we invaded their country.

The Afghan mujahideen were trained by Pakistan's ISI, WE. Nothing you assert is true, WE:

Many districts and cities then fell to the mujahideen; in 1992 the DRA's last president, Mohammad Najibullah, was overthrown.

However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, and many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other over power in Kabul. After several years of devastating fighting, a village mullah named Mohammed Omar organized a new armed movement with the backing of Pakistan. This movement became known as the Taliban ("students" in Pashto), referring to the Saudi-backed religious schools known for producing extremism. Veteran mujahideen confronted this radical splinter group in 1996.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Again- I ask any of you to give me an honest answer- before the U.S invaded Afghanistan- the Taliban was in power- the U.S would be the intruders/occupiers- with that said does the Taliban have the right to defend their land by any means necessary? Why was it ok for the Taliban to fight back against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan(for political reasons), but it's so wrong for the Taliban to fight back against the U.S when they invaded(for political reasons) their land? Are the former Taliban rulers just suppose to say hey U.S do whateer you want- take over our land and we will be submissive to you. Do you know any country that had a govt that was overtaken by a foreign power and didn't fight back?

My jaw drops when I read this crap. It's like 9/11 never happened in Limpdick's world. Oh yes, the 2001 US invasion is morally equivalent to the 1979 Soviet one. Both were done "for political reasons". No difference there. I wonder how the relatives of 9/11 victims feel when they read this kind of libtarded thinking.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Is there something wrong with Mosque popping up? Heck is it any worse than a church on every other corner? You are really displaying your racist ways. Again show me a report of any state that has a muslim population that can sway votes or turn a Red State Blue or vice- versa- you are really full of shit or either paranoid. Stop watching everything you see on Faux news.

My "Obama and the Dems are making a concerted effort to win Muslim votes by kowtowing to them" must really frighten you with its accuracy as you are pulling the race card. Newsflash: Muslims aren't a race.

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Are you doubting that OBL is dead? What advantage would he have of showing the pics, but to get the terrorist assholes riled up? You are truly one dumb fuck!!!

Not showing the pictures disassociates Obama from actually having a Muslim killed. I am not doubting OBL is dead.

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

To IB, gnad, Whirlaway, Lexus and others- make up your mind-what kind of America do you want- because I could have sworn the constitution whom you GOP and TEA party supporters swear to uphold- guarantees FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
I Apologize if I am wrong, but I never knew there was a limit of how many mosque that can be built in a given city.

You really latched on to this "Mosques popping up" phrase. You obviously aren't in Houston. This isn't a "freedom of religion" issue. It's just a response to your "there aren't enough Muslims to make a difference" deflection.

[Wakeup]

There's nothing wrong with building mosques in Houston, or any other town in America...I helped build one here in Houston, and had absolutely no problem doing it...

[IIFFOFRDB]

Can Muslims be Good Americans?

Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen? Consider this:
Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically, no, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically, no, because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and _expression.

Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually, no, because when we declare “one nation under God,” the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation..... Obviously, they cannot be both good Muslims and good Americans.

This explains the link below... http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war

http://www.csidonline.org/index.php?...erence-reports




.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Can Muslims be Good Americans?

Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen? Consider this:
Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically, no, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically, no, because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and _expression.

Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually, no, because when we declare “one nation under God,” the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation..... Obviously, they cannot be both good Muslims and good Americans.


http://www.csidonline.org/index.php?...erence-reports




.

Seriously, are you a member of the KKK or a Redneck- or are you just plain stupid???

There are some Christians who I can categorize in the same boat. Should we kick Jehovah Witness and Mormons out? Jehovah Witness forbid pledging allegiance nor do they celebrate Christmas- ditto for Seven Day Adventist.
I assure you have not read the Quran- I doubt very seriously you have read the Bible.

However, let's talk about the peaceful Judeo-Christian religion that you follow:

Adulterers could receive capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10). Doesn’t that seem harsh by today’s mentality? Or consider the stoning of rebellious sons (Deuteronomy 21:18–21). Doesn’t that seem just a bit extreme? Moreover, the Bible seems to endorse slavery in a number of places (Exodus 21:2).


If you read the Quran and not taken old quotes that come from Hadiths- which is what radicals often use- you will discover that Islam is very similar to Christianity- perhaps more similar than Christianity to Judaism:

Both Islam and Christianity
1) revere Jesus and assert Jesus' holiness, in the sense that he lived in the world while being pure and free of sin;
2) believe that Mary, Jesus' mother, was decent, pure, and holy;
3) declare that Mary, a virgin, miraculously conceived Jesus;
4) assert that Jesus performed a number of miracles.

Jews believe none of the 4 above.

It's also nice how you cherry pick verses to make it seem like the Quran teaches not to trust Christians- did you forget these verses:

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69, and many other verses)

and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).

"O you who believe! Be helpers of God -- as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, 'Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?' Said the disciples, 'We are God's helpers!' Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved. But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed" (61:14).

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It is becoming more obvious that you don't have much information on conservative thought. Yes, the Constitution protects people from government overreach and against the tyranny of the majority. However, the US Constitution has limited bearing on local zoning issues. Now much as we dislike it, someone can buy the land in a city but be forbidden from building whatever they want. Happens all the time and it has been backed up by the courts. A zoning board is supposed to represent the wishes of the majority of the people so they don't approve of strip clubs next to churches. They can also not approve of building a mosque (remember all the smoke and fire in liberal New York City with that mosque) if they believe that it will be a source of problems.

Off the constitutional argument, we are engaged in a world war with radical islam and we need to start making choices that protect our future. As I pointed out earlier Ben Franklin said that the Constitution was not a suicide pact. I take that to mean that you don't do stupid stuff because the letter of the law says that it is possible. Lawyers use arguments like that all the time to get people out of trouble. Maybe it should be used by the other side from time to time.

So you're willing to scrap the Constitution when it doesn't suit your agenda. You're no better than Obama. And what court has ever sided with a city trying to zone out a house of worship on solely religious grounds? Not going to happen. I understand conservative thought quite well. That's why I am not a conservative. I believe in freedom.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Again- I ask any of you to give me an honest answer- before 9/11 - the Taliban was in power- they were hosting al queda and its terrorist training camps- with that said does the US have the right to defend itself after the 9/11 attacks by any means necessary? Why was it ok for the Taliban to give sanctuary to the 9/11 attackers (for political reasons), but it's so wrong for the US to fight back against the country that sheltered, aided and abetted the 9/11 murderers? Is the US just supposed to say hey Taliban do whatever you want- let al queda launch more attacks and we will be submissive to you. Do you know any country that had a govt that was attacked like the US was on 9/11 and didn't fight back?

FTFY limpdick.... now you're starting to make sense....

[Stanfeld]

because he is instructed to marry four women

Ah, those sly Chinese already solved the Islam problem.

“…China will face a growing number of young men who will never marry due to the country’s one-child policy, which has resulted in a reported birth ratio of almost 120 boys for every 100 girls…By 2030, projections suggest that more than 25% of Chinese men in their late 30s will never have married. The coming marriage squeeze will likely be even more acute in the Chinese countryside, since the poor, uneducated and rural population will be more likely to lose out in the competition for brides.”

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by lustylad

FTFY limpdick.... now you're starting to make sense....

Hey Asshole- do you remember the Shah of Iran??? He was very similar to present day Syrian Assad, but he also had many people in the thousands who opposed his regime beaten, jailed, or killed. The Shah of Iran was as corrupt and evil as they come, but wait he was an ally of the U.S because Iran was in a great military strategic place to spy on the soviets.
The Shah was overthrown and the Iranian govt wanted the Shah back in Iran to face trial, but did the U.S release him to Iran? NO. So you tell me what's the difference between the Taliban refusing to turn over OBL to face charges for 9-11 and the U.S refusing to turn over the Shah to face his charges in Iran??

And if after all this time you think OBL- living basically in a cave in afghanistan had the know how and resources to carry out 9-11- you are a bigger fool than I thought!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

And if after all this time you think OBL- living basically in a cave in afghanistan had the know how and resources to carry out 9-11- you are a bigger fool than I thought!

I hate to even ask, but I just have to ask.

If OBL wasn't behind the plot, who was?

Do you mean that Obaminable killed an innocent unarmed man?

Clinton was wrong. Obminable was wrong. Bush was correct. Hmmmmmmm?